Mailing-List: contact dev-help@kafka.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@kafka.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD5tkZY7gNQbftFtZra7Y_d4-oYyR0-6=42hrArKP2HJbEXeBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJZFVeCfnnyhq2Dfuq5B=VofDHjQJZ4jgbc70vE4gK0OE2HfNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALte62zhmUeKtkQn55DhLzyJQ9CP2-QcoAtyma87pE2fzyHX2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD5tkZZVDqtUSWpPL+r0AFDBESbaYgQHg11ytdcDOvsvO8HO7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALte62z0211te6=5HdGWwd0ZkF3RnmM5s-UV0xVFMJhsG6MRUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMd5YszEPgTgGENo6Ek0-S4LrHi4KPa5=2xVo_TptP+=5o9e2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZFVeAGjtJtGN=HTUesCzDqVzzL18sZFoHwk_VKPC+FMrykvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1509995885.2977722.1163515256.51D49E8A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CALS7w+tdp4QxJgK19X1LJXtBjMNBQnPD6G7pXKn=JVaS07x3Cg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZFVeARobwkW81fKsBVHKN0VGVdmTjmrJDUSTkq+uvTYpdVpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMd5YszaMNfygXyfV6t_BK7yVGkrX6i=2Mp-NZOr-vm3T8zzJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZFVeDnhEL2wEptqB=ELPsf+1HB-HdQ19-N_wfpZwEWwCH7=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMd5YswgEZOaQeAx++o7zbsCg+PHa7FzAuwkPoi4_5Su5Zp+dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZFVeCpk7aQsUkjX+caoGnL01=BRZbOgiTv8iDmxiAVBg4Z+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+rPSbZaBXZUpf-EArRsNxGfQZv=wom09Gmt8A339qOy5QRO8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1513047241.516184.1201934328.324519C2@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CAJZFVeBChj2uq6dbDFyG5bFiOR32+nDiPMHCvjmC-bdnffFPQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMd5YsyZvDSHnYBXukeOwHruOABAx19uGL7fws-nXcdTJdThnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+rPSbYRJkyFe3Ak3CkMxay-LeaM0d5P3w17pfxY6JeDhmgNeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5tkZY7gNQbftFtZra7Y_d4-oYyR0-6=42hrArKP2HJbEXeBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Steven Aerts <steven.aerts@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:58:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZFVeC8ScTe8dZ-LME8B08OSxen1Ev0mJGU5+6SYXwSiE9M3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-218: Make KafkaFuture.Function java 8 lambda compatible
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
archived-at: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:58:42 -0000

Hello Ismael.


Thanks for you feedback.

> 1. The KIP seems to rely on the pull request for some of the details of the
> proposal. Generally, the KIP should stand on its own.

Looking back at what I wrote in the KIP, I agree that its style is too
descriptive
and relies too much on the content of the PR.
I will keep it in mind, and try to do better next time.  But as the
voting is over I
assume I better not alter it any more.

> 2. Do we really need to deprecate `Function`? This will add build noise to
> any library that builds with 1.1+ but also wants to support 0.11 and 1.0.

No we don't.  It is all a matter of how fast we can and want an api tagged with
@Evolving, to evolve.
As we know, that it will evolve again when KIP-118 (dropping java 7) is
implemented.

As the voting is over, I am rather reluctant to change it.  But if more people
agree with you, I still want to do it.


> 3. `FunctionInterface` is a bit of a clunky name. Due to lambdas, users
> don't have to type the name themselves, so maybe it's fine as it is. An
> alternative would be `BaseFunction` or something like that.

I share a little bit your feeling, as the best name for me would just be
`Function`.  But that one is taken.

Again, voting is over, so if more people agree with you, I still want to reopen
and change it.


-- 
Steven